But Collins also voted to end debate on the Gang of Eight’s Amnesty bill in 2013, which helped push the bill toward passage. She did rhetorically condemn Obama’s unilateral Amnesty because it “is undermining our constitutional separation of powers.” However, when the time came to vote in support of Ted Cruz’s point of order which would have opposed Obama’s action on constitutional grounds, Collins voted against Cruz and in support of Obama. Senator Collins has a lifetime C- record according to Numbers USA, and she’s getting worse with each passing year.

What’s particularly disgusting about all of this is that even “respectable” conservatives have plenty of cover. The Heritage Foundation says that the Senate must vote “No” especially “when a nominee supports actions that go beyond the executive’s constitutional authority,” as Lynch does. [“No” on the Confirmation of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General, Heritage Action for America, March 2, 2015]. Even National Review has editorialized against the Lynch nomination [Resist the Lynch nomination, National Review, January 29, 2015].

And the Main Stream Media has highlighted other important reasons to oppose Lynch becoming the Attorney General. U.S. News & World Report noted: “There are serious allegations that prosecutors in her office – the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York – made use of secret dockets, denied the victims of crime the opportunity to pursue restitution as required by federal law, and committed other abuses.” [Block Loretta Lynch’s Confirmation, by Peter Roff, February 5, 2015].

Lynch was also heavily implicated in the massive money -laundering scandal involving banking giant HSBC. As U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Lynch agreed to drop charges against HSBC officials in return for its paying a fine [HSBC Whistleblower spills Lynch Evidence To Senate, by Jerome Corsi, WND, February 18, 2015]. Testimony on all of this was presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Politically, it’s hard to see the downside of opposing an Obama nominee because she allegedly protected corrupt bankers.

What all of this shows is how talk of a Republican “majority” is deeply misleading when it comes to immigration. While the Democrats remain utterly united and fanatically dedicated to the goal of importing more Third World immigrants, the GOP cannot keep its caucus on the same side even when it comes to voting against Eric Holder’s chosen heir in the very office that will be used to administer Obama’s unilateral Amnesty.

Instead of a two-party system, we really have a “one and a half” party system, where monolithic Democrats and a rump of the Republicans can always be counted on to go along with more immigration.

The solution: either purge the Republican party of immigration supporters—or starting a new party altogether. But both of these ambitious goals share the same prerequisite—stopping immigration must be at the center of any reconstituted American Right. Anything less is just preparation for more failure.